Chennai Court August 1940 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Madhava Rao Alias Chinnakannan Minor by His Mother and Next Friend Sir ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-23-1940
Reported in: (1941)2MLJ677
Gentle, J.1. The originating summons is taken out for the purpose of construing the will of the late C. Manicka Mudaliar who died on 19th January, 1936, having made his last will and testament on 22nd January, 1935. He left two widows, by the senior widow one son, who is the second defendant, and by the junior widow two sons, the third defendant and the plaintiff. The Administrator-General of Madras is now administering the estate and is the first defendant.2. The matter for decision is whether a gift in favour of the plaintiff of a sum of Rs. 12,000 was specific or demonstrative and if specific, whether it has been adeemed. To help to answer the problems to be considered one must ascertain, as far as one can, what the intention of the testator was, as expressed in his will.3. In regard to the second and third defendants, he gave to each of them a large and a small house in Madras and lands in the mofussil. To the plaintiff he gave specifically a small house in Madras and lands in the ...
R.C. Bhide Vs. the Travancore National and Quilon Bank Ltd., in Liquid ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad18; (1940)2MLJ697
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The appellant claims, to be a creditor of the Travancore National and Quilon Bank, Ltd., which is now in liquidation under an order passed by this Court for its compulsory winding up. In February 1938 the appellant entered into an agreement with the bank under which the bank was to allow him on certain conditions to overdraw his account up to the sum of Rs. 75,000 for the purpose of financing a contract which he had entered into with the Travancore Government. The bank suspended payment on the 20th June, 1938. The petition for winding up was filed on the 21st June, 1938 and the order for compulsory winding up was passed on the 4th September, 1938. On the date of suspension of payment by the bank the appellant had overdrawn his account to the extent of Rs. 56,000. After suspension of payment he was, of course, not allowed to draw further on his account and he says that in consequence the bank has committed a breach of contract. He also alleges that the ...
P.R.S.A.R. Periakaruppan Chettiar Vs. Marappa Goundan and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad67(1); (1940)2MLJ654
1. The plaintiff having appropriated all the payments towards interest in his plaint which was filed before 1st October, 1937, these appropriations cannot be ignored for the purpose of Section 8(1). The most favourable way of scaling down the debt is to adopt the reduced principal of Rupees One hundred and seventy-one, annas two and pies six (Rs. 171-2-6) arrived at according to the plaint, cancel the interest remaining as on 1st October, 1937 and 'credit to the debt the balance of the part decree payment of Rupees Fifty-four, annas three and pies nine (Rs. 54-3-9) minus Rupees Forty and annas eight (Rs. 40-8-0) due for costs and give to the plaintiff a decree for the balance with interest at 6 per cent, per annum from 1st October, 1937. The petition is allowed with costs and the decree will be scaled down accordingly....
Doraikannu Odayar Vs. Veerasami Padayachi Alias Veerasami Chatrakondar
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad59; (1940)2MLJ651
Wadsworth, J.1. This Civil Revision Petition raises questions arising out of the explanation to Section 8 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The petitioner was the third defendant in a suit on a promissory note and he applied to scale down the decree under Section 19. The promissory note relates back to a mortgage of 1922 executed by one Samiappa in favour of Pakkiri for a sum of Rs. 500. In 1929 Pakkiri assigned the mortgage to the plaintiff. Before this assignment, a payment of Rs. 250 had been made towards the mortgage. On 25th August, 1930, the first defendant, father of defendants 2 and 3, purchased the land covered by the mortgage from the sons of Samiappa and agreed to pay Rs. 755 in discharge of the mortgage. On 21st March, 1934, the first defendant paid Rs. 830 towards0 the mortgage and on the same date he and his son the second defendant executed a promissory note for Rs. 150 in favour of the mortgagee and the mortgage was thereby discharged. The plaintiff sued on the promissory note ...
Chittapragada Veerraju and anr. Vs. Muppala Rayanim Dora Garu and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1940Mad940; (1940)2MLJ758
Wadsworth, J.1. This petition arises out of an application under Section 19 of Madras Act IV of 1938. The applicants, who are the petitioners here, sought to scale down a decree dated 26th September, 1936, passed on a mortgage of 8th November, 1920. The mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 5,570, made up by the discharge of four earlier promissory notes, the principal of which totalled to Rs. 4,300, with interest thereon and a small fresh advance. Towards this mortgage there were three payments before suit. On 5th April, 1923, a sum Rs. 1200 was paid and appropriated for interest and on 6th June, 1923 a sum of Rs. 400 was paid and of this sum Rs. 211-14-0 were appropriated for interest and the balance for principal. On 4th October, 1924, a payment o-f Rs. 3,367 was made and the endorsement is that it was made towards principal and interest of the debt; that is to say, there was apparently no specific appropriation towards either principal or interest. On the basis of our previous decisions, t...
Puligadda Venkatasubba Rao (Dead) and ors. Vs. Yellapragada Sivaramayy ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad287; (1940)2MLJ858
King, J.1. This appeal relates to a temple at Rajavole in the Guntur District which is an 'excepted temple' within the meaning of that expression in the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. Plaintiff as a worshipper at that temple filed a suit under Section 73 of the Act to remove the defendant from his trusteeship, and appoint another trustee in his place. The suit was compromised, and as part, of the terms of the compromise a scheme was framed for the future administration of the temple. Plaintiff then applied under Order 23, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, for a decree in the terms of the compromise, and the learned District Judge of Guatur, overruling defendant's objections to the application granted the decree. Defendant now appeals.2. Of the grounds of objection only two need now be considered. The first was that defendant in consenting to the compromise, had been subjected to undue influence. No serious attempt has been made to substantiate this ground in appeal. I agree with th...
M. Thiruvengadamudayanaiya Vs. R. Narasimhaswamiaiya and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad591; (1941)1MLJ488
Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.1. The sole question involved in this appeal is whether under the will of one Ramanujakootam Mangamma who died on the 8th August, 1914, there was a dedication to charily of certain immovable property or whether the property was merely charged to charitable uses. Paragraph 3 of the will reads as follows:I having up to now treated as daughter by affection and brought up Manchukonda Nanugannamma, alias Alamelumangathayaramma, daughter of my deceased younger sister Dachepalli Andalamma, she and her descendants shall take possession of and reside free of rent in one kitchen downstairs and the two rooms upstairs on the eastern side and the halls attached thereto in house No. 25, Venkatachalla Mudali Street. The remaining portion of the said house shall be let on rents and the rents realised shall be utilised for services in the manner described below:(a) for the Brahmotsavam festival of Sri Venkateswara on the hills in the Tirupati Devasthanam, Rs. 100 per year...
Prativadi Bhayamkaram Singaracharyulu and anr. Vs. Addala Sesharao and ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad865; (1941)2MLJ432
King, J.1. This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff to eject the defendants and recover arrears of rent from them, and the subject-matter is a certain land in the village of 'Dontamuru, measuring 5 acres in extent. That land was admittedly granted by the Zamindar of Kirlampudi in or shortly before 1862 to the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff and the question at issue in this appeal is whether the transaction between the Zamindar and the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title amounted to the grant of an inam or to the grant of a permanent lease. If the land is an inam, the defendants have admittedly occupancy rights and cannot be ejected. If the grant was a permanent lease, it is equally clear that it is the plaintiff who can lay claim to occupancy rights and the defendants cannot resist the suit for eviction. The learned District Munsif of Peddapuram decreed the suit. In appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge held that the defendants had occupancy rights and therefore they...
In Re: Jalakam Venkata Subbadu
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-22-1940
Reported in: AIR1942Mad81
Lakshmana Rao, J.1. The appellant has been convicted under Sections 397 and 324, Penal Code and Section 23, Clause (1)(b), Criminal Tribes Act and sentenced to transportation for life. The appellant pleaded guilty to the charges and there is no ground for interference with the conviction. But his last conviction was on 12th March 1928 when he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and the present offence was committed on 16th November 1939. There was thus an interval of about five years between his coming out of prison after serving his last sentence and the commission of the offence and as held in In re Karuppa Thevan (1929) Mad 841 this is a special reason to the contrary within the meaning of Section 28 (1) (b), Criminal Tribes Act, for awarding a lesser sentence than transportation for life. This was overlooked by the Sessions Judge and having regard to all the circumstances a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years would suffice. The sentence is therefore...
Neelappa Reddiar Vs. Solaimuthu Udayan and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Aug-21-1940
Reported in: AIR1941Mad58; (1940)2MLJ517
Wadsworth, J.1. This revision petition raises the question of the meaning of the explanation to Section 8 of Madras Act IV of 1938. Does the term 'renewed or included in a fresh document' cover the case in which a debt due by A is discharged on a debt due by B to the same creditor being substituted for it?2. The facts are that one Arunachala was indebted to the plaintiff under a promissory note Ex. E of the year 1918. That promissory note was discharged and in lieu of it on the same day (3rd October, 1934) a promissory note Ex. D was executed by the defendant who is a distant relative of Arunachala. This has been renewed by a series of documents terminating in the suit promissory note by defendant to the plaintiff dated 19th August, 1936. There is a missing link in 1925, but the lower Court has found that the evidence is sufficient to prove that the missing promissory note of 1925 was part of the chain of renewals. It follows therefore that in scaling down the debt the defendant is at ...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »